Attachment 2 - Evaluation Criteria - HEAL PK Testing.pdf
PDF 141 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NINDS – HEAL Program – Rodent Pharmacokinetic (PK) Testing Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 75N95024R00115
About this file
This document is the Evaluation Criteria for a federal contract opportunity related to the HEAL Program Rodent Pharmacokinetic (PK) Testing Services.
The key evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, are: (i) Technical Approach (65 points), which evaluates the suitability and feasibility of the proposed technical approach, methods, procedures, and timelines; (ii) Management and Staffing Plan (25 points), which assesses the offeror's experience and ability to effectively conduct and manage the project; and (iii) Past Performance (10 points), which reviews the offeror's relevant past performance on federal government and commercial contracts. The government may also consider information from other sources to evaluate past performance. Technical and past performance, when combined, are more important than price.
The non-scored evaluation factor is the acceptability of the offeror's description of the use of live vertebrate animals in their technical proposal. Offers with an "unacceptable" rating in this area may be rejected.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 1 - SOW for HEAL PK Testing_revised8.20.24.pdf | ||
| HEAL PK Testing Services Questions_Answers.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - SOW for HEAL PK Testing_final.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Additional_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf | ||
| Combined Synopsis Solicitation- HEAL PK Testing.pdf | ||
| Attachment 6 - Invoicing Instructions With IPP.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 - FAR 52-212-5.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 - VAS Worksheet.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services
The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers (listed in descending order of importance):
(i) Technical Approach (65 pts)
a. Suitability and feasibility of the proposed technical approach, methods and procedures for satisfying the requirements
b. Timelines for deliverables.
(ii) Management and Staffing Plan (25 pts)
a. Suitability of experience and ability to effectively conduct, manage, and coordinate the resources to ensure successful operation of the technical plan and carry out the proposed project.
(iii) Past Performance (10 pts) The Quoter shall identify up to two (2) awards with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance.
Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude to the work described in the Statement of Work.
However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any Quoter whose quotation is determined to be technically unacceptable.
Include the following information:
• Project title
• Description of the project
• Contract number
• Contract amount
• Government Agency/Organization
• Contracting Officer’s name, address, and phone number
• Contract and, if applicable, task order number
• Current status, e.g., completed and/or if in progress, start and estimated completion dates
• Dollar value and type of contract
• Name of company being referenced
• SOW paragraphs that the reference applies to
• Key personnel (please highlight those individuals who worked on the relevant project(s) and are also being proposed for this effort.)
• A brief narrative of why you deem the reference to be relevant to this effort
The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources. Past performance information will be utilized to determine the quality of the contractor’s past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort.
(iv) Price
Technical and past performance, when combined, are more important than price.
Non-Scored Technical Evaluation Factor: Live Vertebrate Animals Evaluation
As part of the overall technical evaluation of proposals, the reviewers will consider the acceptability of the offeror's description in the VAS of the technical proposal. The discussion of all criteria will be addressed and evaluated. Based on the evaluation of this Section, the VAS may be rated "unacceptable" (i.e., concerns are identified as to the adequacy of the description addressing each of the criteria, or no discussion can be found regarding the VAS), or "acceptable." If the reviewers find that this Section of the technical proposal is "unacceptable" they will provide a narrative supporting their findings.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .